Two men of New Scotland are asking the Federal Court to declare the current suspension of the illegal Parliament because there must be a “reasonable justification” to press the pause button.
The federal lawyers argue in response that the advice of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before the governor general of the Parliament of the Prorogado is not subject to review by the courts, and that the final judgment falls to the voting public.
The president of the Federal Court, Paul Crampton, is listening to arguments from both sides of the dispute for two days they heard on Thursday.
In his application submitted last month, David Mackinnon de Amherst, NS and Aris Lavranos de Halifax look for an order to reserve Trudeau’s decision to advise Governor Gen. Mary Simon who will exercise his power to the parliament of the prorogy until March 24 .
Mackinnon and Lavranos also request a statement that this parliament session has not been prurrogated.
On January 6, Trudeau defended the tears while announcing plans to resign as prime minister once a new liberal leader is chosen.
Trudeau also said that Simon had agreed to his request to the parliament of the prorogado, cleaning the legislative board cleaning and stopping the affairs of the Chamber of the Commons and the Senate.
He said that the extent would allow a restart of Parliament, which had been largely paralyzed for months as the conservatives pressed the liberals to deliver documents related to evil in a green technology background.
Mackinnon and Lavranos asked the Court to accelerate a hearing of his request for judicial review, citing the urgent threat of the United States of tariffs pronounced on the assets of Canada.
They maintain that Trudeau’s decision effectively denies Parliament the ability to carry out its constitutional functions in the “exceptional and convincing” circumstances raised by tariff threats.
“While a prime minister has the power to advise the governor general to the Parliament of the extension, such power cannot be used in the absence of reasonable justification,” they say in their submission written to the Court.
“It cannot be used to allow the government ‘mount the flock’ about Parliament. That would simply be a tyranny, which must be firmly rejected by this court.”
Section 5 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that Parliament feel at least once every 12 months.
Mackinnon and Lavranos do not agree with the notion that this is the only limit in the prorogation powers, and argue in their application that the very existence of section 5 “demonstrates that the discretion of a prime minister to advise the extent It is not absolute. “
“The exargence is not universally available in its slightest whim,” they add.
The couple argues that the section does not provide guidance on when, and under what circumstances, a projection can begin legally. “That is a completely different question,” they write.
Mackinnon and Lavranos also argue that the unwritten constitutional principles indicate Parliament, not the Executive, is supreme, and that to maintain the authority to govern, the government must be responsible and retain the confidence of Parliament.
Parliament is now prurrogated until March 24, giving time to liberals to draw a new way to follow following the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but that does not mean that the government has stopped.
James Manson, lawyer for the applicants, on Thursday told Crampton that corresponds to the court to establish the scope of the reasonable justification to request the extent.
“What would be offside? Is there really no limit?” Manson asked. “Do we really want a prime minister to have so much power to do whatever or he, when it is, for the time he wants?”
In an affidavit filed before the Court, Mackinnon, who has worked hard as a lawyer, says that no one should be taken in Parliament or carrying out businesses to help the government in case urgent legislative measures must be taken.
“In particular, I am concerned that Parliament cannot react or deal with the imminent economic and political threat without precedents facing Canada of the United States, as the President Donald Trump is repeatedly announced and declared repeatedly, writes Mackinnon.
The government says that the case must be dismissed
In its written presentation to the court, the Government requests that the case be dismissed.
Federal lawyers say that the basis of the current prorogation and its duration are completely consistent with the exercise of power in Canada and that it has complied with the only constitutional requirement: that Parliament feels at least once every 12 months.
“During the brief period of extending, only five scheduled weeks of the Commons Chamber will have been interrupted and the government’s executive branch has continued to function effectively,” says the federal presentation.
“Any intervention of a court would be contrary to the binding and unjustified authority.”
The Governor’s Governor’s Prime Minister is granted in accordance with a well -established constitutional convention and is not reviewable by the Court, adds the federal presentation.
“The Government will be responsible to the Chamber of the Commons and, ultimately, the electorate of the decision to proceed.”
